proactive

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So just the death of one child or should I say the photo of one dead child should mean that the UK should open the doors to anyone who can get across the Med? Children like the one in the photo die in their tens of thousands every day and yet this does not lead to any country changing its policies. The child in question was already safe!!! He was not in Syria, he was in Turkey and his family wanted to emigrate to Canada and not stay in Turkey, No one begrudges anyone an opportunity to have a better life but when you put your child in danger in order to achieve a better life for yourselves then it is not the fault of the UK, or the west, it is solely the fault of the parents! I am surprised that none of the media has bought out this fact. The Germans and Merkel may feel the warm glow of self satisfaction at having helped these refugees but by their actions they have just jeopardised the future of their country. Already Germany has major problems with Muslims and now they are willing to increase their population by another 15% per year and this is without any regard to the high birth rate of these people. The refugee conventions states that a refugees needs to register in the first safe country that they can get to. So those Afghans amongst these refugees should have gone to Pakistan or Iran and register as refugees there. The UN spends millions of dollars on these refugees in Pakistan so why did they not go there if their lives are in danger. For the Syrian refugees the nearest safe country is Turkey. It is interesting that these refugees when they got to Hungary which is a safe country prevented the Hungarian authorities from registering them in Hungary because they would then, under the refugee conventions have to stay there and await their results of their claim for political asylum. As the Hungarian benefits for refugees are not as generous as the German ones these refugees did not want to be registered there. These refugees are very media savvy, as shown by the video where the man grabs his wife and child and forces them on to the railway track as they the police were placing them on trains to the refugee camps. The man knew that bleeding heart liberals like Jigsaw Singh would be beating their breasts and throwing ashes in their hair and being ashamed of being British or whatever nationality they have because of the way this man and his family was being treated. The fact was that this man was not happy that he would have to stay in Hungary and not get to Germany and it's generous payments for refugees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VVTQUQKaU

The censuses give figures for migrants to each state. If we look at Punjab in 1991 there were a total of 1,126,149 people born in other states of India in Punjab. This figure excludes those born in Pakistan and who migrated in 1947. As there was migration of Sikhs from other states after 1984 then some of these migrants were Sikhs. The usual figure given for these migrants is about 50,000. If we take the Sikhs away from the above figure but add to this figure 11,350 who were migrants from Nepal then the number of these migrants were 1,087,500. So in 1991 if we take away the migrants from the Hindu figures then -; 6989226-1087500 = 5901726 / 19194469 (pop. of Punjab minus no. of migrants) = 30.74% If we do the same for 2001 8997942 - 1724675 = 7273267 / 22634324 = 32.13% So the Hindu Punjabis did increase without the migrant population, but the 1991 census did have the added issue of many Hindus listing themselves as Sikhs because of the Kharkoo movement there. Interestingly, if these migrant population is excluded as above, the Sikhs would have been 66% of Punjab population in 1991 and 64.4% in 2001. The decrease has already been explained above. These are figures which exclude the Sikh migrants who left Punjab for abroad so if they had stayed then it is likely that the Sikh population would have been 75% in Punjab. The migrant figures haven't been released for 2011 census.

Unfortunately this has been going on for a long time. Charities are created and they want to run before they can walk and all they really do is duplicate the work of bigger western charities. Here is an interesting charity from Canada which is doing good work in Punjab. and here they are doing something which should have been done a long time ago

Apart from the deflated number of Sikhs in Punjab what is also concerning is that Sikhs appear in states where over the last few censuses had increased by a larger percentage than the ones in Punjab have now according to the census data started to grow at a lesser percentage. As we know Punjab suffers from female foeticide as well as migration of Sikhs to countries abroad. So one would assume that Sikhs in Punjab would grow at a slower rate than the ones in states where there is less or no report of foeticide as well as little migration to other countries. Take for instance Rajasthan. Between 1991 to 2001 the Sikhs here increased by 26% while the Sikhs in Punjab only increased by only 14.3% But between 2001 to 2011 the Sikhs in Rajasthan increased by only 6.6% while the Sikhs in Punjab increased by 9.67%. There figures appear unlikely because if we look at the Sikh population in the age groups 15-29 or those who are likely to be married and have children between 2001-2011 for both Punjab and Rajasthan it shows who unlikely the census figures are. In Punjab 23.89% of Sikhs were of that age group. In Rajasthan it was 27.2%. Absolute numbers (ie Sikh numbers in Punjab being 18 times more than the Sikhs in Rajasthan) do not matter here as we are looking at percentage increases and not increase in absolute numbers. So the above figures shows that not only more of the Rajasthan Sikhs were in the age groups likely to have children and hence increase the Sikh population but because the Sikh numbers in Punjab also suffered from migration, these very age groups in Punjab were the ones that were likely to migrate to foreign countries and thus not contribute to increasing the Sikh population in Punjab. Also the drug issue is less in these states than in Punjab. The same is true of Haryana, the Sikhs in this age group were even more than in Rajasthan at 28.06% but they also increased by 6.24% less than the Sikhs in Punjab and Rajasthan! Only in Uttaranchal state did the Sikhs increased by more than those of Punjab 11.46% and had about 28% in the age groups 15-29.

The census with regard to the Sikhs appears to have been tampered with mainly due to political considerations. The last census before the 2011 one was held in 2001 and it was held during the BJP coalition in power in Delhi. Historically the BJP has always sought to promote the belief that the Sikhs would eventually become a minority in Punjab whether they are actively trying to achieve or just promoting this in order to take power in Punjab. Just after the creation of Punjabi Suba the Hindu press in Punjab which is run by Hindus associated with the BJP started to promote the belief that the Sikhs who according to the 1961 census were 56% in the Punjabi Suba area would eventually become a minority. The 1961 census had been tampered with both by the government as well as by Hindu parties seeking to inflate the Hindu numbers in order to deny the Sikhs Punjabi Suba. The 1961 census report contains such blatant falsehoods as half of the Mazhabi Sikh population in Amritsar district as Hindu! This falsehood could not be carried over into the 1971 census because the Akali leadership having won the new Punjabi state would be vigilant of any manipulation of the census figures. In every census since then the Mazhabi Sikhs have been listed as Sikhs with a percentage of 98.5%. In 1991 also there also could not be large scale tampering with the Sikh figures as any attempt to deflate them would have used by human rights organisations to point to the fact that the Sikh losses were due to the genocide suffered by the Sikhs in 1984 and after. The Sikh numbers were in fact inflated naturally because the Hindus in Punjab in many cases put their religion as Sikh. Only in 2001 was it possible for the BJP to tamper with the Sikh figures. They had a so-called Panthic government in Punjab which could not care less about the Sikh numbers. The census was held during the BJP rule and thus the Sikh figure was shown to have been affected thus. The census figures were released a few months after the Congress took over from BJP in 2004. The Hindu population in Punjab has always been on decline ever since the first reliable census was taken by the British in 1881. The Hindus lost numbers to both the Sikhs and Muslims between 1881-1941. Only between 1951-1961 did the Hindus increase by more than the Sikhs and this was due to large number of Sikhs belonging to Mazhabi and other castes being counted as Hindus rather than Sikhs and also the migration of Sikhs from Punjab to other states. The Sikhs started to increase by more than the Hindus from 1971-1991. Even though large numbers of Sikhs migrated out after 1971 the Sikhs still increased by more than the Hindus. The 2001 and this census appear to have been manipulated and Sikh numbers deflated. Here are some of the reasons why. 1. While Sikhs in India were shown as increasing only by 18% between 1991 and 2001, but the increase was uneven. In Punjab the Sikhs increased by only 14.3% (from 12.767M to 14.592M) but outside Punjab in the rest of India the Sikhs increased by 32.4%!! (3.492M to 4.623M). So unless there was large scale migration of Sikhs from Punjab to other states of India then the figures do not look correct. As the period 1991-1995 was one of intense persecution of Sikhs it is unlikely that Sikhs would have been migrating from Punjab to other states. 2. In the 2011 census the Sikh population is shown as increasing by 9.67% in Punjab but outside Punjab the Sikh population is shown as increasing by only 4.45% !! Now the reason usually given for the fall in Sikh numbers in Punjab is migration and female foeticide. But does this mean that the Sikh population in states where the Sikh population increased by more than Punjab between 1991-2001 have suddenly started to have less children or started to commit female foeticide on a mass scale? This is highly unlikely and there is no mass migration of Sikhs from these states to outside India as there is in Punjab. To shown how dubious the figure for Sikhs outside of Punjab is , consider this the census authorities of India would want us to believe that even though Sikh population in Punjab is facing problems like female foeticide and migration the Sikh population still managed to increase by double the percentage as the Sikhs outside of Punjab! 3. The most surprising figures for Sikhs is that in states like Rajasthan where Sikhs had increased by percentages such as 26% between 1991-2001 have suddenly only increased by 6.6% between 2001-2011. In 2004 when the religion figures were released the Delhi Gurdwaras committee did a survey to verify the figures as they stated that the figures for Delhi with regard to Sikhs had been deflated. Here is a report from that time-; The Sikhs In Delhi who increased by 18% percent between 1991-2001 and now being shown in this census as only increasing by 2.7%!! (0.555M to 0.570M) It is possible to look at other ways to test whether the census was reliable. For Delhi, if we look at the electoral roll for the Gurdwara elections which were held in 2013. According to Gurdwara elections commission the total number of registered voters for the elections were 415,708. This would be all Sikhs 18 and over resident in Delhi in 2013. To find out the percentage of Sikhs in the age group 0-17 we can use the figures for Delhi in 2011 but deduct the difference between the Sikhs in that age group in 2001 which was 7% less. 33% of the population of Delhi was 0-17 years old and this leaves 26% as the percentage of Sikhs in that age group. This means that there were 523,000 Sikhs in Delhi in 2013. But we still then have to add the number of those who did not register as well as those not eligible as they were not Keshdharis. If we take this number to be about 35% then the number of Sikhs in 2013 in Delhi comes to be 705,000 and not the 570,581 as listed in the census. Another piece of data that can be used in the language data. Sikh population in Delhi has been roughly at a ratio of 3:5 (60%) to the population of Punjabi speakers. In 1991 there were 748,145 Punjabi speakers in Delhi and 455,657 Sikhs. In 2001 the Punjabi speakers went up by 32% to 998,890 but the Sikhs only went up by 22% to 555, 602. The thing to consider is whether more non-Sikhs started to list their language as Punjabi between 1991 to 2001. This appears unlikely although about ten thousand Hindus did migrate from Punjab to Delhi in the early 1990s due to the violence there. But this is such a small number given that the difference between Sikhs and Punjabi speakers went from 292,468 to 433,378. Had the Sikh to Punjabi speaker ratio remained the same in 2001 then the number of Sikhs in 2001 would have been 600,000 and not 555, 602 as listed by the census. The DSGMC needs to use it's resources and verify if the census data is correct or not because this data is used to allocate resources.

The creation of Bangladesh was different in that it involved the defeat of one national army by another national army. The shock to the Pakistani psyche was so great that it created more national cohesion and thus no fracture. In West Bengal the fact that the Pakistani army had been defeated also created a jingoistic nationalism which obviously did not lead to a nationalist movement in West Bangal. The nature of any break up from India will be different. Independence for Kashmir say through a Kashmiri political party winning a state election and then declaring independence would have a much greater impact than a Kashmir breaking away through the use of armed force. Same for Khalistan, the Kharkoos came close to having a state government with their people in control between 1989-1991 and only the election boycott prevented a Sikh party with Khalistan as their agenda from coming to power. Also you need to understand that for the Indian psyche more so than the Pakistani, national unity is sacrosanct, once it is broken then India as a united country will cease to have any legitimacy. The perceptions of people can change in an instant as can be seen in the break up of the Soviet Union. The USSR was also considered as sacrosanct by the people but when it broke it created a domino effect that has led to 15 odd countries coming out from the union.

Shamsher Singh did really well but I think he should have challenged that old nut job kapoor about her constant referring to the Guru Granth Sahib as well as why is getting involved in the affairs of Sikhs.

That pakhandi has done enough damage to the Panth, so I for one will be glad to learn that he and his cult have passed into ignominy

Your situation is different from Khushwant Singh. There is nothing in Sikhism that says that he is not free to be an atheist whereas in Islam there is. The only 'punishment' he would suffer would be if he was to take Amrit and commit any of the kurehats and even then he would need to seek forgiveness for his offence. As I said they only punishment would be that many Sikhs would break all social contact with him were he not to seek forgiveness. His situation is like a citizen of say the UK who does not vote in the elections but would support the government if the country were invaded. Your situation is that of a member of the Nazi party but who has Jewish friends and is against the holocaust. This is why I said you are a hypocrite because you continue to support a religion which is against your personal belief system and which if you were to publicly announce what your personal belief system was, you would be in fear of your life. Even given all this you remain in the religion. What your personal situation does show is how much of an influence a cult can have on its members even when they clearly do not believe in the cult any longer. I think your views may also have something to do with the fact that you will lose your family because as with all cults, Islam decrees that it's rules and regulations are above any considerations of family ties. There are quite a lot of youtube videos of ex-muslims who have left Islam and have had to deal with the reactions of their family members. I think you need to be true to yourself because they deception that you are playing on your family can be detrimental to your mental health. I think you should get a referral from your doctor to some counselling where you can work through your issues. Unfortunately the options are either full time paid up membership of the Islam cult and all the entails or a life free from the fear of allah's hellfire but full of fear from even your nearest and dearest. I remember discussing with a Muslim years ago and when the question was put to him whether he would support the sharia punishment of death if his mother became an apostate he was clear that he would! This is the kind of person that Islam create if he is born into the religion or attracts if he is convert,

You are quite right but rather than this unwillingness to accept the truth being a positive it is actually a very dangerous and suicidal negative. The same belief can make a Muslim say a Sunni Muslim put on a suicide belt and blow up a Mosque because it is a Shia Mosque. A Shia will do the same to a Sunni Mosque. Honestly if the whole world became Muslim tomorrow, Islam will still remain a religion of violence and terrorism because one sect of Muslim will kill another sect of Muslim in an endless cycle of violence. You have glossed over why you as an atheist do not want other Muslims to know what you are. The reason is quite clear, these same Muslims will not wait for a moment before they start to throttle you or behead you. You are safer in a western country than you would be in an Islamic country. Do you now see why apart from being a atheist you are also a hypocrite. You support a religion in which you have no belief and the tenets of which clearly would call for your death.

And they get the terrorist Modi to open it!

He's now managed to get the left wing mirror scum into the story. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-called-after-protesters-storm-6275255 He's had a lot of heat on his facebook page and like every hypocrite he would just like his page to be full of left wing id.iots commending his 'bravery' in highlighting the 'thugs' protesting these sham weddings. I would suggest the everyone who has been banned from his page go and create another fb profile and put your views across.

The Sunny deleted my post and banned me from posted because I asked why a self appointed anti-racism activist had nothing to say about the committee member calling the protester CHUHRAS? The lefty idiots have glossed over this fact even claiming the guy provoked into swearing..lol. Btw Sunny informant is some <banned word filter activated> who is married to a gori himself so he can hardly be unbiased having has a sham wedding himself. Well done to all those who turned up, only if more and more of these sham weddings are exposed will these Gurdwaras stop their manmat behaviour.

eidr

The thing is that Sikh Council UK or other Sikh organisation do not have any power to enforce on the Gurdwaras. They can only advise unless they themselves have members in the Gurdwara committees. What is needed is for the youth to get involved, in the last election the young members got a lot of votes even though they lost a number of their group who left the election due to underhand tactics by the other two groups. Only when the youth start to take over the Gurdwaras through youth committees, only then will the Akal Takht hukumnama be enforced.

Lets be honest here, the Gurdwaras in the UK nowadays are not really Sikh institutions anymore but more like secular social clubs/community centres. They are mainly geared towards money making. Look at the Singh Sabha Gurdwara in Southall which loves to call itself the biggest Gurdwara in Europe yet were openly about to perform an Anand Karaj against the directions of the Akal Takht. What other proof do we need that this Gurdwara and others in the UK are now so corrupt that they feel that they can challenge the Akal Takht with impunity. I have always said that until Sikh youth start to take an interest in and become members of the Gurdwara committees the old budhay with the money making mentality will take the Gurdwaras from being beacons of Gurmat to being centres of Manmat. From the video it is clear that the Granthi has no answers, so he attacks the guys making the video for not being keshdharis. This is the only answer he has and from the looks of him and his shifty ways I doubt he would think twice about selling his own mother for money. The committee member Sarpanch I think his name is, does concede that what is happening is wrong but as is usual when committees are caught out in wrongdoing. he proceeds to lay blame on the previous committee. The new committee has been in place for over 4 months and yet did not think to look through the bookings for Anand Karaj to see which ones are not in line with the Akal Takht hukumnama. He then also latches on to the Granthi's mode of attack by criticising them for not being Keshdharis. While some may see this as being disrespectful but the guys taking the video gave the perfect answer by saying 'why do you stand there with your Turbans and yet still committing wrong acts' I agree with the posters that state that the guys who were protesting the Anand Karaj should have been Keshdharis and could have been more articulate but then if the Kashdharis and Amritdharis weren't bothered to turn up then you can't blame these brothers for feeling pain at seeing a mockery being made of the Anand Karaj. If anything we should be showing support to them and their efforts should be commended and if anything this should make Keshdharis and Amritdharis hold their heads in shame that they were not doing what these guys were able to do. Do doubt the liberal left wing fools who like to pass themselves off as Sikhs when it comes to criticising those standing up for the Rehat Maryada but will never do anything positive for Sikh issues, will try and turn these guys into Sikh versions of the Taliban but what is most important and something that we should not lose sight off is that these guys have succeeded in preventing a ceremony that should have been beadbi of our Guru. The Independent newspaper like other media rags will be tomorrow's chip paper but what these guys achieved should be lauded and they should be congratulated for preventing the beadbi of our Guru.

Jonny is right, you are confusing the Gujjars or Punjab with those of J&K, I have lived in Punjab during the 70s and do not recall seeing an Gujjars like you see today. These Gujjars have been coming to Punjab only in the early 2000s. They have been bought to Punjab as part of a conspiracy and are then settled on wakf board land. The Kashmiris of Amritsar were not Gujjars but traders and craftsmen and were a part of the Amritsar social scene from the 1800s ti 1947. They migrated to Amritsar from Kashmir because of the unsettled conditions during the Afghan rule in Kashmir.

The thing to understand is that wherever there are a group of human beings living or working in close proximity there will always be some personality clashes. Rather than a lot of relevant information, you have just written what can best be described as a rant. Firstly, it appears than you family members are traditional in the sense that they care for their elders which is commendable in this day and age. Quite a lot of the elders are now being placed in old peoples homes or just left to live on their own. Where these elders are still respected and live as part of the extended family, they may also wish to retain the power and influence that they had when they were the head of the household. This also causes problems. Although many elders are sensible and realise that their children aren't kids any more and allow them more and more responsibility within the family. You have been given some very good advice here especially the one about checking the health of your husband's grandmother as well as remaining respectful yet keeping space between her and you. This is probably the best thing you can do. If your parents in law are being caused problems by the grandmother then really in the set up you live in it is their responsibility to correct the situation. If you say anything this will be seen as undue interference. Let they make these mistakes and then let them realise on their own accord. The health check up is a good idea as it may show up problems that could be causing her to behave in such a way. If she is lending money to people then it depends who she is lending to and whether they have returned the money previously. Some people unfortunately can't say no when they get a request for a loan from relatives especially as a refusal in the olden days would have been taken as an insult. One thing to check through you husband is whether she keeps a note of these loans as this would be evidence of whether she understands that the loan is to be paid back or whether she is being taken advantage of.

The biggest irony is that he was the leader of the Hindu suraksha simiti ( Hindu self-defence organisation). So much for self defence, getting killed by his own body guard. I reckon like Indira that entitles him having an airport named after him!

This guy was a low level criminal who in order to get some credibility attacked Bhai Hawara and got a slap for his trouble. Badal then gave him three body guards because he claimed that his life was in danger. The irony is that one of these punjab police body guards was the one that killed him.

Badal's chumcha has made the post of Jathedar of Akal Takht appear irrelevant to the Sikhs now and this will be that <banned word filter activated>'s biggest legacy. He and Badal are now scared that what has happened abroad to their chumchay abroad could happen in Punjab. Once that happens then Badal and his Akali dal is finished.

If you check the name on the 192 site the other names of the members of the family living there have south Indian names. His facial features also don't appear to be typically Sikh.

I think this change kicks in 2017 so Islam will remain the 'fastest growing religion' until then.

The truth can be offensive to those who do not wish to have the truth told to them. Are you saying that the Muslim community does not have many problems? KullyKhalsa's comment could be called offensive if the Muslim community did not have the many problems that it so clearly has. This is not to say that the Sikh community also does not have problems but the MAIN difference is that the Sikh community's problems stem from the fact that some Sikhs do not follow Sikhism to the letter and the problems of the Muslim community stem from the fact that some Muslims are following their religion to the letter (ie ISIS). What I find offensive here is that you come on the forum to criticise Sikhs for pointing out that the Muslim community has problems. You might wish to live in a fools paradise and think that all is well with your community but only someone who lives their life in blinkers would think this. I mean if the Sikh community had a group of people who were taking non-Sikhs as sex slaves, killing some non-Sikhs and converting some by force to Sikhism as well as throwing homosexuals from tall buildings and no Sikh religious authority was pointing out how unsikh these acts are then I would say that the Sikh community had problems equal to the problems within the Muslim community. Rather than come on this forum to have a go at Sikhs for pointing out the problems within your community I would say your time would be better spent in highlighting how unislamic is the behaviour of ISIS. Of course this would presuppose that the behaviour of ISIS is unislamic which having researched Islam for the last decade leads me to believe is not the case and that ISIS has a more credible interpretation of Islam than the dishonest airy fairy version of Islam that the west has been fed such as 'Islam is a religion of peace' and 'Mohammed was a mercy to mankind' etc You may wish to live your life according to a believe system dreamt up by a 7th century slave trader who had a good side line in caravan raiding as well as rape and pillage which for his time was a quite respectable career path but in the modern world there will be non-Muslims who will call you out on your outdated and primitive belief system.

It's a flight of fancy to think that Maharaja Ranjit Singh could have ended British rule in India. The Khalsa army could have defeated the British in India but the British had unlimited resources and could have mustered larger armies of mercenaries as well as British troops. After the British had defeated Napoleon, they did not have any other serious opposition in Europe so the Sikhs would have faced the whole of the British empire with their Indian allies. Maharaja Ranjit Singh knew that in order to consolidate Sikh rule in Punjab, he needed to have peace in his eastern border which he successfully achieved with his signing of peace treaties with the British. The thing that did in the Sikh raj was the chaos after Maharaja Ranjit Singh when no one single Maharaja could rule for more than a few years and hence was unable to consolidate Sikh rule further. Had Kanwar Naunihal Singh not died/been killed or Maharaja Sher Singh ruled for a few decades then the Sikh empire would not have been destroyed by the British.